694 Responses

Specifically, we were talking about how the stadium suffered massive cost overruns. There were no penalties for late completion, the job was effectively time and materials, and the contract had been let to a local firm without tendering.

The CEO's are appointed not elected, this is not an easy fix problem as that discussion paper points out, alot of work has gone into local government, the big bogey is federalism and the lack of a constitution, so far by my reading.

Some of the key changes introduced by the rewrite of the 1974 statute include: • The replacement of a highly prescriptive statute with a general empowering clause. • A new purpose which requires councils to promote social, cultural, economic and environmental well-being. • An emphasis on taking a sustainable development approach. • A requirement to identify community outcomes in collaboration with other agencies, including government departments and a “whole of government” approach to service delivery. • A requirement to consult. • The application of a general empowering provision and new purpose to regional as well as territorial councils. • A requirement to report every three years on the achievement of outcomes. The specific parts of the Act that give life to the mission of local government are contained in Part 2 of the LGA which describes the purposes, roles and powers of regional and territorial authorities and Part 6 that codifies a model for long term (ten years) strategic planning focussed on community well-being outcomes, and for decision making and accountability. The primary mechanism for accomplishing this is the power of general competence (PGC). Section 12 grants local authorities “full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any act, or enter into any transaction."

by the elected councillors. Christchurch local voters had a chance to turf them out and didn't.

Like the general election, that may have a lot to do with the quality of public discourse beforehand about performance and alternatives. People naively calling for government-appointed commissioners or mid-term elections for Christchurch are a reflection of that.

Marryatt's handling of the matter cost the council at least $30,000 - and the services of an excellent employee.

This is the really evil thing about Marryatt and his ilk. How many 'excellent employees', people whose priority is simply to do their job well, have been nobbled or sidelined because they're seen as impeding a self-serving agenda?

On the other hand, Marryatt appears to have a fine nose for advancing the easily manipulated. Here's first-term City Councillor and onetime bomb hoax prankster Aaron Keown prior to last year's Council election:

"The head of Orion gets $700,000 a year when people can't pay their power bills. That's offensive. I can't understand why people don't get upset by that and I'm not a commie or a socialist.

Yet almost immediately after being elected, Keown became one of Marryatt's most outspoken supporters, to the point where he incurred a fat Council legal bill for his intemperate mouthing off over the CEO appointment process.

Note that Minister at the time Michael Bassett intended that to mean retain the services of expert consultants, not ask the public what they think. That would come as little surprise to any who have followed his career.

Oh goodness yes the ambiguities are so think on the ground it is a wonder anyone wants to even go there. The issues tie together so many agendas that have for so long supported the powerful few that I cannot see change occurring anytime within the next 50 years, if at all.The super city concept only reinforces the status quo. Christchurch has highlighted a greater need for unified governance, but has been used (as was the 1987 crash), as a pretext for central Govt. intervention that precluded the basic agreed principles noted in that discussion paper.My view is that our Govt. local govt. model is very badly broken and out of step with the needs of the nation and communities...but that view may be considered heretical.

The private sector was also utterly opposed to any extension of the Treaty of Waitangi into local government, recommending that any reference to it be deleted. They reiterated the compliance costs of consultation with Maori, the difficulty of identifying who claims to represent “the Maori community” and argued that Maori should not be treated any differently than any other significant interest group. In summary, the private sector had an inherent distrust in the ability of local government to wield wider powers in a responsible way or believe that local communities can hold councils and authorities to account.

Bolded bit mine. On the face of their protestations it would appear that the private sector submission was anti-democratic and undermines the ability for civic governance.

a local government system that works in partnership with central government to promote economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being for New Zealanders in their communities. Labour…

Simple. The idiotic voters of NZ wanted a “Hobby Prime Minister” who had the “ambishun” for NZ to be available for his rich mates to buy up with their bail out money. This is why we have no decent policy, we have no decent Government.It just makes me angry to see this Country being sold down the Swanny by a group of overpaid scumsuckers who care for nothing but their own wealth.You'all didn’t think Labour was good enough, remember?.Suck on that…

Last year, I said there'd be 2 surprises from the South - and there were (Rino Tirikatene taking back Te Tai Toka, and Chris Auchinvole being dumped by The Coast in favour of Damian O'Connor.) There'll be more Southern surprises (I dont mean finance/investment company collapses!) over this year.

Oh for fuck's sake . . .As this thread's about Chch #eqnz matters:Lianne Dalziel would make a bloody good mayor IMHO.I voted for Megan Woods despite her having barely said boo on quake issues.Why the fuck was Brendon Burns placed so low on the list that Chch Central has no effective opposition advocacy?

Blaming voters for local govt. laxity is the same as Govt. blaming us for being over indebted (note how much faster we saved than they have over the last 2 years). It feels good but it does sweet fanny f.a.Local govt. striking rates against their own valuations has nothing to do with voters. Govt. borrowing more than they need (Bill E, first week in office again) same as above. Whipping myself for not voting in shonky local govt. elections is going to go nowhere in spec'ing myself up on what has been and is a complete attack on our communities by successive local govts - all so central Govt. can keep it centralised.

I'm definitely warming to that dog. Like some senior Labour figures it's had bugger all to offer on quake issues, but it didn't poke its oar in over the Hagley High 'prayer room', or engage in bike races with the mentally ill.